In less than a year, America will have a new president. Barring unforeseeable events, on Jan. 20, 2009, the inaugural oath will be administered to either John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Should the Republicans retain the presidency, we will be in for four more years of darkness. On the other hand, should Obama or Clinton become president, we-the progressive movement and the left-will face a range of opportunities that have the potential to put us on the long road toward fundamentally changing America’s foreign and domestic policies.

Over the next year, we need to put into place a two-track strategy that will provide our movement with a sense of direction for both the short and long-term struggles that lie ahead.

Track one: On practically every issue that we care about-from stopping the war in Iraq, to fighting global warming, to protecting civil liberties, to tackling economic injustice-the Democrats have far better policies than the Republicans.

Because of this, our top priorities between now and Nov. 4 must be to do all we can to help elect either Obama or Clinton while at the same time working to help the Democrats strengthen their majorities in the House and the Senate. And in the process of mobilizing to achieve these two goals, we should also be organizing to expand the progressive movement.

The effort to defeat George W. Bush in 2004 represented one of the most highly coordinated, well funded, and intensely fought mobilizations that (take your pick) progressives, the center-left, liberals, or Democrats have ever mounted. For many, it felt more like a flesh and blood political movement than a mere campaign to elect John Kerry president.

In all likelihood, over the next 10 months we will see something of a similar magnitude and intensity develop. And if Obama emerges victorious in the race for the nomination, the mobilization to elect Kerry will pale in comparison.

This time, though, we need to do a better job of letting activists know that there will be a coordinated, nationwide effort to elect a Democrat to the White House that will be operating independent from, but parallel to, the official campaign of the Democratic presidential candidate.

If we are going to build and sustain a movement, we must provide activists with the clear sense that a national movement for systematic change not only exists but is being coordinated in one form or another.

To illustrate the point: How many of the thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush volunteers in 2004 were aware that a national coalition called America Votes was (loosely) coordinating the work of practically every national progressive group in the country? Similarly, how many activists were aware of the massive, nationwide (albeit highly targeted), grassroots effort mounted by Americans Coming Together (ACT)?

America Votes is still very much alive. Currently 42 organizations have joined the coalition, including groups like MoveOn, the AFL-CIO, ACORN, and Emily’s List.

In 2004, ACT was able to place thousands of organizers on the ground in key swing states because of the funding provided by George Soros, the Lewis family, and other wealthy individuals. While ACT no longer exists, a similar, as of yet unnamed, organizational effort is now in the works for the current election cycle.

While many activists knew about the role that ACT and America Votes played in the campaign to defeat Bush, the vast majority of progressives were, at best, only dimly aware that these two groups even existed.

This time around we need to place a greater emphasis on keeping progressives fully informed about the key components of the national mobilization to oust the Republicans from power. By making sure that all activists are plugged into the progressive movement, we’ll be providing some of the all-important glue that will help unify and grow the movement in the years ahead.

Track two: In order to seriously address the problems that are facing our nation and the rest of the world, we will need to construct a vital and visible left-wing of the progressive movement.

One of the reasons the progressive movement lacks a coherent left-wing is because the term “progressive” has lost its radical edge. (For a related discussion of this, see “The Left’s Identity Crisis.”)

In recent years, the movement has had one clear thing in common: its visceral opposition to George W. Bush and everything that he and his fellow right-wing Republicans stand for. But should the Democrats recapture the White House in November, the limitations of the progressive coalition will become apparent.

Among the most important limitations is that many of the most influential organizations within the progressive movement have yet to adopt agendas that call for truly fundamental policy changes-either foreign or domestic.

But if we are going to transform America into a nation that provides all its people with a decent life while also working to alleviate human suffering throughout the rest of the world, we will need a progressive movement bold enough to adopt such a far-reaching agenda.

In short, we need a left wing of the progressive movement to lead the way. For only a revitalized American left can chart the path that our country so desperately needs to follow.

 ________________________________

From: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3555/

March 2, 2008

The American Left: Liberals, Progressives and the Left

By Ken Brociner

The term “progressive” has evolved a great deal over the past 35 years.

By the ’70s, many ’60s veterans had concluded that working “within the system” had become a viable option. As a result, many leftists stopped using rhetoric and slogans that had marginalized them from the political mainstream. Labels like “radical”, “leftist”, and “revolutionary” sounded stale and gratuitously provocative. And so, gradually, activists began to use the much less threatening “progressive.” Today, “progressive” is the term of choice for practically everyone who has a politics that used to be called “radical.”

On a somewhat parallel track, in the ’80s, liberal politicians found themselves under attack by the Reagan inspired right-wing of the Republican Party. Soon, conservatives succeeded in changing “liberal” into something akin to a dirty word and liberal politicians began to avoid any association with the term whatsoever.

By the early ’90s more and more Democratic politicians began referring to themselves as being “progressive.” For most of the ’90s, though, this shift was so gradual that only the closest political observers seemed to even notice it. Notably, the progressive label was not only picked up by liberals like Ted Kennedy, but also by centrists like Bill Clinton and his cohorts in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

In fact, during the Clinton administration a tug of war ensued between centrists, liberals, and the left over who owned “progressive.” But by the end of the ’90s, “progressive” belonged to the left-wing of the Democratic party as well as to those activists who had one foot in the party and one foot outside of it-to its left.

Since 2001, “progressive” has become considerably more vague in its meaning and application. With a hard right-wing administration in power, the differences between various left of center groups and politicians became less important than the need to stand up in opposition to Bush’s disastrous policies. ************

Since it now appears all but certain that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, let’s assume-for the moment at least-that he also wins the general election. With Obama in the White House, the left would at last be able to go on the offense-especially if the Democrats can expand their majorities in the House and, most importantly, in the Senate.

Then what? Obviously we would need to help support Obama’s legislative initiatives against the fierce opposition he would face from big business and its Republican allies. But since most progressives see themselves as being to Obama’s left, the question then arises as to how we might push his administration further to the left.

Three basic organizational strategies could be pursued:

1. Building “a party within a party.”

2. Constructing a multi-issue progressive coalition to pull the Democrats to the left.

3. Proceeding in an ad-hoc manner to advance the progressive agenda on an issue-by-issue basis.

The first strategy is being employed on Capitol Hill by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The 72 members of Congress who make up the Progressive Caucus are left-leaning Democrats who have drawn up an agenda called “The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All” that clearly positions the Caucus on the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Co-chaired by California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, the Progressive Caucus regularly rallies support for causes and legislation that have yet to be embraced by their more “moderate” colleagues in the House and Senate. While the Progressive Caucus hasn’t been able to win passage of any of its legislative priorities, it is widely seen by grassroots activists as providing the movement with an important voice in the corridors of power in Washington.

The “party-within-a party” strategy is also the approach being followed by the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA is in the process of trying to build chapters across the country in order to move the Democrats to the left. So far, though, it has had only very limited success. Perhaps most significantly, the progressive movement itself hasn’t gravitated toward either PDA or its general strategy.

While few progressives would disagree with the desirability of having one grand progressive coalition, those who are most familiar with all the ins and outs of organizational politics on the left argue that such a coalition isn’t in the cards-at least not for the foreseeable future. The reasons for this include: the differences in the agendas of many of the largest progressive organizations-especially those in the labor movement; the all too frequent inter-organizational rivalries and clashing egos; and the genuine differences that exist when it comes to what strategies should be pursued in the first place.

So by process of elimination, we are left with the “ad-hoc, issue by issue strategy” (or non-strategy if you will). Given the shifting nature of groups that mobilize around one issue or another, this ad-hoc approach is the most realistic and viable strategy at our disposal (even if it does lack the strategic coherence that the other two might offer).

Ironically even though this “strategy” has rarely been spelled out, let alone given a name, it has, in fact, been the primary approach that the progressive movement has utilized since Bush became president in 2001.

The grassroots coalition that came together in 2005 to defeat Bush’s attempt to privatize social security is a highly successful example of this “issue by issue” approach-which will almost certainly be the de-facto strategy of the progressive movement in the years ahead.

Another key advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t require the same degree of ideological unity that would be required by the other two strategies. It allows moderate- liberal Democrats and leftists to continue to cohabitate under the progressive banner. And, given the strength and power of our common adversaries, maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship between mainstream Democrats and the left is of the utmost importance for the future of the progressive movement.

Ken Brociner’s essays and book reviews have appeared in Dissent, In These Times and Israel Horizons. He also has a biweekly column in the Somerville (Mass.) Journal.